|
senate vote 2017-06-22#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-11-24 11:44:07
|
Title
Bills — Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017; in Committee- Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017 - in Committee - Distribution of funding
Description
<p class="speaker">Jacinta Collins</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (16) and (18) on sheet 8155 together:</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.230.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Jacinta Collins](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/jacinta_collins) (Labor), which means they failed.
- Senator Collins [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-22.230.1):
- > *The government's bill entrenches a discriminatory distribution of funding by prescribing sector-specific targets of 80 per cent of the SRS for non-government schools and 20 per cent of the SRS for public schools, fundamentally opposite to the review of the funding of schooling objective of a sector-blind model. In fact, it is quite sector specific. There is no reason for the arbitrary decision to fund just 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard for public schools and 80 per cent for non-government schools. That is not what the Gonski review recommended.*
- >
- > *The government's funding model provides a majority of extra funding for the non-government sector despite the public sector educating the majority of educationally disadvantaged children. This was clearly detailed in the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham's media release on the day of the announcement. The government's target of 80 per cent of private schools in 2027 and 20 per cent for public schools in 2027 has no requirement for states or territories to ever increase their funding. The crossbench, in Gonski 2.0-plus, has somewhat attempted to deal with that issue but we have already covered that territory.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:*
- >
- > *(1) Schedule 1 , item 1 , page 3 (lines 4 to 10) , omit the item.*
- >
- > *(3) Schedule 1 , page 3 (after line 13) , after item 2, insert:*
- >
- >> *2A Section 6*
- >>
- >> *Insert:*
- >>
- >> *overall funding , for a school for a year, is the total of:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the school' s total entitlement for the year; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) any recurrent funding for the school for the year from a State or Territory, other than:*
- >>>
- >>>> *(i) financial assistance provided to the State or Territory for the school under this Act; or*
- >>>>
- >>>> *(ii) capital funding.*
- >
- > *(5) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 6 (line 15) to page 8 (line 18) , omit the item.*
- >
- > *(11) Schedule 1 , page 13 (after line 27) , after item 42 , insert:*
- >
- >> *42A After subsection 130(5)*
- >>
- >> *Insert:*
- >>
- >> *Regulations prescribing Commonwealth share*
- >>
- >> *(6) Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of the definition of Commonwealth share in section 6 in relation to:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) a school located in Victoria in relation to a year commencing on or after 1 January 2022; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) a school located in another State or Territory in relation to a year commencing on or after 1 January 2019;*
- >>>
- >>>> *the Minister must be satisfied, having regard to the combined contributions of the Commonwealth and the State or Territory, that the regulation has the effect that the overall funding for the school for the year is at least 95% of the total of:*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) the base amount for the school for the year; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(d) the school' s total loading for the year.*
- >
- > *(17) Schedule 1 , item 47 , page 17 (lines 19 to 21) , omit "Not all schools will attract the final Commonwealth share immediately. Most schools (called transitioning schools) will move to that share over a period of 10 transition years.".*
- >
- > *(19) Schedule 1 , item 71 , page 22 (lines 5 and 6) , omit "Most schools (called transitioning schools) will move to that share over a period of 10 transition years.".*
- -------
- > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000*
- >
- > *Amendments (3) and (11)*
- >
- > *Amendments (3) and (11) are framed as requests because together these amendments would be likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013 from 1 January 2019.*
- >
- > *Amendment (3) inserts in section 6 of the Act a definition of “overall funding” for a school year as the total of both the school’s “total entitlement” under the Act and the recurrent funding from a State or Territory.*
- >
- > *Amendment (11) would constrain an existing regulation-making power, to set the “Commonwealth share” of funding, to circumstances where the Minister is satisfied that the purpose of the regulation will be to ensure that “overall funding” for a school for the year is at least 95% of both the base funding amount and the school’s total loading for the year.*
- >
- > *From 2019 onwards (or 2022 for Victorian schools), this requirement is likely to increase the amount of Commonwealth funding under the standing appropriation in order to attain this funding target. As a result, the amendments are likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013.*
- >
- > *Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19)*
- >
- > *Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19) are consequential on amendments (3) and (11). Amendments (1) and (5) omit provisions proposed by the Bill which would alter the method for calculating the “Commonwealth share” of funding to schools. Amendments (17) and (19) omit references to schools transitioning to the final Commonwealth share of funding over 10 years, as schools will likely transition to this share from 2019 ( or 2022 for Victorian schools) . Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19) should therefore be moved as requests.*
- -------
- > *Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000*
- >
- > *Amendments (3) and (11)*
- >
- > *If the effect of amendments (3) and (11) is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.*
- >
- > *Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19)*
- >
- > *These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments purely consequential on amendments framed as requests may also be framed as requests.*
<p class="italic">(16) Schedule 1 , item 46 , page 16 (lines 8 to 21) , omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">46 After paragraph 3(1) (c)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(ca) to ensure that, as the Commonwealth increases its school funding, the States and Territories also increase their school funding so that each Australian school receives, from the Commonwealth and the State or Territory in which the school is located, recurrent funding equal to at least 95% of the total of the base amount for the school for the year and the school' s total loading for the year, for each year commencing on or after:</p><p class="italic">(i) if the school is located in Victoria—1 January 2022; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) if the school is located in another State or Territory—1 January 2019;</p><p class="italic">46A Subsections 3(2) and (8) (note)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the note.</p><p class="italic">(18) Schedule 1 , item 48 , page 18 (line 10) , omit paragraph ( c ).</p><p>We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:</p><p class="italic">(15) Schedule 1 , item 45 , page 15 (line 3) to page 16 (line 7) , to be opposed .</p><p>Can I say, in relation to this set of amendments about retaining the current preamble objects and reform objectives that are in the act, that Labor has always been up-front about our values in relation to school education. We believe in the transformative power of education and that high-quality school education should be available to all Australian children. Our schools should not entrench disadvantage; they should do the reverse. Every student in Australia should receive their fair funding level, the level they need for a high-quality education.</p><p>Let's be clear about the contrast between our values in education and those of those opposite. You can look at the government's proposed bill and try to understand those values, but it is not just what is in their bill that matters; sometimes what is not in their bill tells you a whole lot more. Labor's Australian Education Act, the current legislation, enshrines our values up-front. We set objectives and targets: that all students in all schools are entitled to an excellent education and that the quality of a student's education should not be limited by where they live, the income of their family or the school that they attend. The first object of our act was to ensure that the Australian schooling system provides a high-quality and highly equitable education for all students. You cannot find those objects if this bill succeeds, because they are not there.</p><p>What is in the bill also reflects what you believe you can achieve. The government's bill has cut a lot of our national targets. It no longer aims for Australia to be one of the top five highest performing countries in reading, maths and science by 2025; for our schooling system to be considered high-quality and highly equitable by international standards by 2025; or to halve the gap between the outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and other students by 2020.</p><p>After all the talk about the need to reverse Australia's declining education performance and, indeed, the talk in here about transparency, there is no point unless we have benchmarks or objectives to measure that by. Having the Schools Resourcing Board has a range of the advantages that we have discussed, but we should be establishing the standards we hope to achieve under that transition, whether it is six or 10 years. In six years time, we should be able to revisit this issue and say we have not met the objectives that we set or, indeed, that we have. We need to be able to review what has been achieved by these changes and understand what further changes need to occur.</p><p>After the talk about the need to reverse Australia's declining education performance, the government does not back itself to achieve the targets but, indeed, has progressed the cuts. That is because this bill removes the reform objectives contained in the act. It removes reform directions around the quality of teaching, the quality of learning, empowering school leadership, providing transparency and accountability, and meeting student need—many of the issues that were previously incorporated in the plans and the National Education Reform Agreement that this government let languish. Finally, Labor fundamentally believes that all schools across the country should move to their fair funding level, 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard, and today I move these amendments to include this object clearly in the legislation.</p><p>The government's radical alternative plan is to take this combined approach with states and territories—in fact, I think Senator Bernardi referred to competitive federalism before. This new approach is a 'one size fits all', Commonwealth-only share approach. I understand that the Senate chamber seems to be determined to allow that radical shift in approach, but let's at least hold the government accountable for it. Let's include in the act the object of what should be achieved. Let's hold them to account in the future about how this poorly-informed shift in approach has not worked.</p><p>The schooling resource standard is, as many of us understand, the amount of funding needed, based on evidence informed by the Gonski review, to give a child a high-quality education. Every student in Australia should be entitled to their fair funding level. Any funding system that does not include this objective will just entrench inequality and disadvantage in our schools. By removing these things, this bill abandons the objective that all schools should reach their fair funding level of 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard.</p><p>Instead, the government's arbitrary decision to prescribe sector-specific targets of just 20 per cent for the SRS for public schools and 80 per cent of the SRS for non-government schools will mean that 85 per cent of public schools will be funded below their SRS target in 2027. Labor does not believe that we should have a school funding system that does not keep the objective of a quality education at its heart. We are calling on the Senate with this batch of amendments to retain the current preamble, objects and reform objectives in the act to enshrine the objective of schools reaching their fair funding share of 95 per cent of the schooling resource standard.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I will just quickly respond to Senator Collins. The preamble that is proposed in the bill for the new act is a very clear preamble. It makes plain to all who choose to see it the importance and significance of education in the life of the individual, the importance of a high-quality education to the future of our nation and the role of the Commonwealth in regard to the provision of education—the centrality and importance of that—and, indeed, as a leader in education systems across the country.</p><p>The objectives, yes, are varied and simplified somewhat from what is in the current act. But it is the Commonwealth's intention that specific targets, as such, ought to be set via the types of agreements that we hope will be struck with the states and territories following the second Gonski review. The right place for time-limited targets is indeed in such agreements, rather than in enduring legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>The question is that amendments (16) and (18) on sheet 8155 be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I am just working out the different machinations, because they changed. I just want to clarify that the Australian Greens supported those amendments of the opposition.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay. The question now is that item 45 of schedule 1 stand as printed, which is amendment (15) on sheet 8155.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|